Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Um, yeah, but that's different.


OK, this doesn't sound good:

This morning I hear on the radio that the University of Calgary has prohibited a pro-life group from holding a rally on University property.

Um ... as a big believer in free speech, I have to ask: What's the problem? Oh:

Campus Pro-Life Club displayed their "Genocide Awareness Project" on the grounds between Mac Hall and Science B Mon., Oct. 15 and Tue., Oct. 16.

Excuse me? "Genocide?" Could these people get any more sensationalistic? Or irresponsible? Well, yes:

The CPL display featured graphic images of lynchings and genocide, connecting them with bloody pictures of fetuses. CPL president Matthew Wilson explained he hopes for people to be impacted by the graphic nature of display and in turn initiate a conversation about abortion...

Genocide? Lynchings? Could it get any sillier? You had to ask:

"With images of the Holocaust and genocide, people that have personal connection or have personal histories connected to it find it really abusive to use these historical events for a totally unrelated cause," explained Judd.

Um ... yeah, let's just go all-out and play the Holocaust card, shall we? I mean, if we're discussing a medical procedure that's entirely legal in this country, that's the analogy I would be making.

In unrelated news, some Blogging Tories get really hacked off when you make inappropriate comparisons to the wanton slaughter of several million Jews. I just thought you needed to know that.

9 comments:

Ti-Guy said...

You know, I remember now why I couldn't stand clubs when I was in undergrad. Throw them all off the campus. These people should be in the library doing their assignments, anyway.

Niles said...

A friend is on UofC campus. She says last year's display was an enormous eyesore that worked to get in your face. People were taking other routes just to avoid it. She said it's one thing to believe something, but this is more like the Phelps crowd pickets, insistent on imposing and insulting anyone that didn't toe their line.

She also mentioned that UofC seems to attract local evangelical efforts because it's seen as such a 'godless' corrupting space and it's easy to find. Mind, she's a bit biased, having been 'prayer assaulted' in the parking lot more than once to abandon her secular ways. She's surprised her Darwin fish hasn't been vandalized.

roblaw said...

Free speech.. definitely.. free to assault and harrass others.. definitely not.. if you do anything beyond putting up a sign and a "soapbox" to stand on and shout your thoughts out, we should be able to put a fire hose on you.

This rule applies to:

Pro-life groups;
Pro-choice groups;
Unions;
Anti-G8 Summit protesters;
PETA;

..oh, and throw in that religious devotees can't come to my door at 8:00am either.. or, at least, that I should have the right of turning the hose on them if they haven't been invited..

So - we shouldn't tell anyone what they can or can't say.. but we sure as hell should be able to tell them that they have to say it in a way that allows me to ignore them if I so choose.

..but the comment of the Administration that "The Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't apply to the University".. well, that bears some examination.

deBeauxOs said...

Say roblaw, have you ever been introduced to the notion that freedom of expression is a right that must be used responsibly otherwise it becomes a license to bully and abuse people who do not share your belief?

roblaw said...

..lol.. say deBeauxOs.. if you're willing to hand me the keys to let you know what "responsible" expression for you is.. I'm happy to consider your notion... I mean, I'm one of those blogging tory motherfuckers - do you really feel confident with handing them the right to muzzle you when they believe you are not expressing yourself "responsibly"?

I'm a lawyer.. and I can tell you about a million different ways that I can possibly convince a Judge that the statement you just made may not be "responsible".. trust me.. better to just let the shit fly..

BUT.. if you mean that no one should be able to follow you down the sidewalk harrassing you, or knocking on your door to argue with you at any hour of the day.. well, yeah.. hence the fire hoses.

The Seer said...

So I'm sitting here reading the comments wondering why a commenter on this blog would put unions right, smack, dab in the middle of Pro-life groups, Anti-G8 Summit protesters and PETA. Even if he does throw pro-choice groups in there too. I mean, what's the Law Society of Upper Canada but a closed-shop?

Then Brother deBeauxOs, a reprobate if there ever was one, goes "freedom of expression is a right that must be used responsibly otherwise it becomes a license to bully and abuse people who do not share your belief."

Well, Brother dBeauOx. Brother RobberLaw has a license to practice law. And he’s "one of those blogging tory motherfuckers," no less. And he's got "a million different ways that [he] can possibly convince a Judge that the statement [Brother deBeauOs] just made may not be "responsible[.]" Brother RobberLaw follows this revelation up with the admonition "trust me."

So now I’m sitting here thinking Do I trust Brother RobberLaw? Am I sure I really want to rattle Brother RobberLaw’s cage? Can Brother RobberLaw walk into some court room down south pro hac vice and convince an American judge that what your humble seer said is irresponsible? Can Brother RobberLaw get Stockwell Day to get Barack Obama to extradite your humble seer into the clutches of Canada’s New New Government for assignment to the reeducation camps?

And I’m thinking, fuck it. Canada may be run by nutcases these days, but Brother Obama is no nut case and I live in a free country.

So I’m going to say it. Brother RobberLaw, you’re not just a motherfucking blogging tory, you are a stupid motherfucking blogging tory, and you want experience with judges who sit in real court rooms.

WV "dessor," which, I believe, is Law French for cease.

liberal supporter said...

Fire!

sooey said...

They should be allowed to look like the sort of people who would deny a woman her legal right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy - I think.

roblaw said...

..hahaha.. seriously.. this blog is so much more fun than the others.. and BrotherSeer.. you make my point for me..

If I truly am a stupid evil motherfucker as you suggest.. could you feel comfortable with the notion that your free speech MIGHT be subject to MY judgement of what is "reasonable"?

..be very, very, careful about putting subjective rights of judgment in others hands is my only point..

Are there limits.. sure.. and that's my point too.. even if you support unions, or business for that matter.. does anyone have the right to intimidate and harass..

I'm just suggesting that, just maybe, there's actually more in common with the disperate politics than we like to admit when we're in the midst of having a hissy-fit because the Cons got elected again.. or for that matter, because Obama got elected in the U.S...

If the "theory" of Obama means anything, perhaps it means to start with what we agree on.. and work from there (I mean.. he's appointed some Republicans to his cabinet for fuckssake..)

So.. I like the use of "brother".. thought it's not really gender-inclusive.. 'cause we're all on this fucking planet together at the end of the day..